HEMANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a Sessions Trial (No. 290 of 1996) under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C., before IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, the Trial Judge rejected the application of the accused -applicant for adjournment on the ground of his being busy in other cases. Thereafter, the Trial Judge examined the two prosecution witnesses, who could not be cross -examined and then closed the evidence. The Counsel for the accused -applicant applied for recalling of the order of closure of evidence of the two witnesses since he was busy in other Courts and could not come but the said application was rejected by the Trial Judge.

(2.) THAT is how the accused -applicant has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the Trial Judge for seeking the evidence and giving an opportunity for cross -examination of the two witnesses.

(3.) IT is true that the patience of the Trial Judge was exhausted because of the absence of the lawyer for the accused -applicant and that is why he closed the evidence but it has also to be taken into account that the case is under Section 302 I.P.C. which can result even in a death sentence and the stakes are, therefore, high. A little latitude will not, therefore, be out of place.